052/052B Class Destroyers

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

I'm not sure there is a need for VLS in the 056. If the PLAN feels more air defense missiles are needed, the obvious solution is to switch to a larger HQ-10 launcher. The 056 probably doesn't have the draft for anything larger than 3.3m cells, so any other missile types are out.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the single HQ-10 only have a 180 degrees coverage, maybe 270 max?

But yes, I overlooked the 3.3m cells vs the length of the anti-ship missiles. Though the guess of the width of the 056 is at 13m, surely a 7 m cell can be squeezed in from bottom to top (say near around the "hangar" area) would work? Especially if the hanger became a little higher. Not really arguing for one, just thinking out loud here.

Also with VLS, perhaps the ability to eliminate need for torpedo launchers on both sides of vessel?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

joshuatree said:

Wouldn't the single HQ-10 only have a 180 degrees coverage, maybe 270 max?

But yes, I overlooked the 3.3m cells vs the length of the anti-ship missiles. Though the guess of the width of the 056 is at 13m, surely a 7 m cell can be squeezed in from bottom to top (say near around the "hangar" area) would work? Especially if the hanger became a little higher. Not really arguing for one, just thinking out loud here.

Also with VLS, perhaps the ability to eliminate need for torpedo launchers on both sides of vessel?

Click to expand...

Adding VLS for the sake of omnidirectional SAM launch is not worth the cost in space, weight and money for this class of ship. The only reason IMO for a 056 to have a VLS would be to be able to launch CY-X missiles. OTOH placing it so high on the ship may or may not be possible in terms of stability issues, and probably not possible unless the launcher were extended another deck higher than the highest deck in the back area, which would make the stability issues even worse by adding more weight and also shifting weight even higher. I think this class of ship is already maxed out in terms of what it can carry. A big 2x4 VLS module, even a single one, is not in the cards for the 056.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer


Good model of a MK41.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Isn't the old cold launched HHQ-9 on the type 052c slanted at an angle so it can fall into the sea if the rocket motor fails to ignite?

But the new 8 cell unit means the launchers will have to point straight up?


=======
On the other hand if the dimension of the outer 2 by 4 containers was larger than the inner container for the cold launched missiles, then they could slant the inner container while keeping the whole thing straight.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

Mysterre said:

Well the reason hot launch system cannot accommodate cells of different lengths is because of the shared venting. Of course, this is not a problem with CCL systems so I don't see a problem with mixing different length cells. Only minimal structural modifications to structural supports would be needed, and the benefits would be large.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me. You were saying that if 054B uses this VLS it can only house 2 modules, but the cells closer to the center line can be 9m while the outer cells are the 7m ones, right? But according to the standard all cells in the same module are the same size, which means if you want to put 9m missile canisters close to the center line then it has to be a 9m module, with a 9m module's deck penetration requirement. This quick sketch drew by me illustrates what's not possible according to the current standard. The structure required to house even only the center line cells will make the whole module a 9m one. It would be better to change this and make the whole support structure flexible, but that is not reflected in this document. OTOH it's been six years since the draft of this standard so maybe newer one already existed.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

hmmwv said:

I think you misunderstood me. You were saying that if 054B uses this VLS it can only house 2 modules, but the cells closer to the center line can be 9m while the outer cells are the 7m ones, right? But according to the standard all cells in the same module are the same size, which means if you want to put 9m missile canisters close to the center line then it has to be a 9m module, with a 9m module's deck penetration requirement. This quick sketch drew by me illustrates what's not possible according to the current standard. View attachment 6829The structure required to house even only the center line cells will make the whole module a 9m one. It would be better to change this and make the whole support structure flexible, but that is not reflected in this document. OTOH it's been six years since the draft of this standard so maybe newer one already existed.

Click to expand...

The Xed setup is exactly what I'm talking about, and I do not feel a document would make such a strange "standard" as requiring every cell to be of the same length, especially if it is not necessary to be so. Did this document SPECFICALLY state that every cell in a module is required to be the same length?

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

I think what he means is that a 2 by 4 block either has to be all 9 meters, all 7 meters or all 3 meters long. But I don't think that is reflected in the document.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

during satory defense expo, China displayed a new SAM call "sky dragon" ,the missile was in fact derivative of SD-10 or PL-12 AAM.the 50km range indicate it was fitted with booster.
back in 2006 zhuhai airshow, CGI showing SD-10 inside naval VLS.but minue the booster was seen and appear in top81.comthe VL box luncher I recall is very similiar to 056 and 052D.

re: PLAN Type 052 Class Destroyer

I have a noob question, the advantage of VLS is mainly the firing speed right? They are not limited by the reload, so if they are facing with multiple incoming missile threats they can fire off all missile at once right?